Since the issue of truth-telling recently resurfaced, I’ll venture a few comments of my own. Indeed, I’ve already discussed this issue, as has John Frame.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/07/too-hot-to-handle-1.html
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005Must.htm
1.But to simplify the issue, the question of whether we should always tell the truth goes to the antecedent question is whether truth-telling is a means or an end. Some ends are moral absolutes, but means are inherently pragmatic. Means exist to facilitate a given end.
What is the value of truth-telling? Well, it has an obvious social value. If lying were the rule, then we couldn’t trust anyone—and if we couldn’t trust anyone, then social life would be impossible. Yet we are dependent creatures. To some extent, we depend on one another for our being and wellbeing.
Most instances of lying occur in a social context—although there’s a sense in which it’s possible to lie to oneself.
If the rationale for truth-telling lies in large part in its social value, then this is a means rather than an end. We should be truthful to one another insofar we need one another, and pervasive dishonesty would force us to rely on unreliable parties.
So, as a rule, we should be truthful. All other things being equal, we should tell the truth.
But if the above-stated rationale is correct, then, by that very same token, there are times when we should not be truthful—for there are times when telling the truth would be a social vice rather than a social virtue.
A textbook example of antisocial truth-telling would be in a case in which telling the truth would place innocent life at risk.
This is consistent with the underlying principle of truth-telling, for truth-telling is a means to an end. And if there are occasions when truth-telling would be subversive to that end, then deception is permissible or even mandatory.
If the rationale for truth-telling is that telling the truth is ordinarily a social virtue, and if there are exceptional occasions when telling the truth would, in fact, be socially destructive, then, in such a situation, the same end is better served by deception.
2.Remember that Christian ethics is not about an ideal code of conduct, but is, rather, adapted to a fallen world. In an unfallen world, truth-telling would be a universal norm.
But, in a fallen world, it is only a general norm because not everyone will play by the rules, and when some people break the rules, it may be necessary for other people to make a corresponding adjustment. A classic case is hiding Jews from the Nazis.
This is both a hypothetical and a real life example.
3.As I said above, this is quite consistent with a belief in moral absolutes, for the absolutes attach to certain ends, and not to their auxiliary means.
So we need to distinguish between the principle and the process. The process is merely instrumental to the principle.
4.There is also an obvious difference between deception and fiction. As long as a fiction is evidently fictitious, there is no deception involved.
Hence, even in cases where deception is illicit, fiction is licit—for deception doesn’t cover cases of fiction.
5.Finally, one can have the right principles, but apply them wrongly. Whether a given application is licit or illicit is a separate question that can only be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"4.There is also an obvious difference between deception and fiction. As long as a fiction is evidently fictitious, there is no deception involved."
Well, considering that Paul actually logged in as 'brother blark' and claimed to be him, that was clearly LYING, and does not fit your criteria noted above.
Its no shock that Paul is a liar...and its no shock that he has a dozen reasons to try and rationalize it. Its also no shock that unbelievers love to point out the hypocrisy of Christians.
What is a shock is that anybody even cares about this silly issue. Paul's a liar when it suits his purposes, atheists are fools and morons. Theists are oh so smart and wise. And both sides just love arguing with each other, to show how smart they are, and prop up their own assumed presuppositions.
I note with some amusement the whole matter of lying. In truth, when it comes to fiction and/or parody, it seems clear to me that the Discomfiter, as a fictional character, is a grey area. For example, does that mean a Christian cannot write a novel in the first person? Or, indeed, write a spoof column in a newspaper?
ReplyDeleteBut all that is by the by. The true issue for John Loftus is the accusation of paedophillia. He blames Mantana for allowing it to stand. Given that John has been the victim of rape accusation, I can see why that was harmful to him. More clearly perhaps than when the controversy first erupted.
False accusations are wrong, and if Paul knew that the first comment was made by an impersonator, he was wrong to let it stand.
On the position of lying, might I suggest that a clarified version of Aquinas is probably the closest to a workable position for Christians. Clearly malicious falsehoods are way outside the pale. Lies told in jest, for example, the time the security guard at the office told me the company I was then working for had gone bust, are fine, provided they are flagged up at the time or soon after (however, we must be careful that they do not cross over into the category of malicious). On helpful lies, I would point out two cases. The first is the Michal to Saul's men variety, that is, when not to lie would lead to a greater evil. The second, that which we come across more often is the diplomatic lie. For example, I once had information that I knew would destroy a person if he ever knew it (that is, that almost everyone thought he was a fool and a waste of space). I rebuked the persons responsible for the hurtful comments, but I did not alert him to the facts. Someone else did, however, and that discovery was the first step in a breakdown that destroyed him. Was I right to try my best to minimise the damage, to preserve his illusions?
All I know is that the person who did tell him used him for their own ends. And that person is lucky not to have blood on their hands.
On the Discomfiter, I repeat what I have said before, I think that a line was crossed. But I also think that some of the material there was no more than a good parody.
And, as for mental reservation, may i quote a line from the Betty Grable film 'Pin-up Girl', "when you let someone believe something that isn't so, that's lying!"
In the final analysis, "if we are to fight, let it be as men", to quote the immortal Simon Templar. Away with Jesuitry!
John,
ReplyDeleteIf I were you, I would want Hays and Manata gone also! A man can only stand so many beat-downs.
I have to keep this info in the "low down," but rumor has it, that I may be soon added to the T-blogue ranks, and will be 'pushing aside' a certain existing lying member.
ReplyDeleteI'll keep you posted!
That diabolical Loftus, trying to sow seeds of discord among the brethren. Just like his father, the devil...
ReplyDeleteActually, I think Loftus is an embarrassment to Debunking Christianity and should be given the boot, but hey, that's just me. I know I wouldn't have such a person like him on my Blog, but hey, that's just me.
ReplyDeleteOf course, neither would I have someone with the arrogant and demeaning attitude of a Daniel Morgan either. But who can get rid of him, right? If I couldn't give them both the boot then I would seriously consider leaving the ranks of Debunking Christianity if I were any of the other contributors, but hey, that's just me...a "adulterous whore" who refuses "to take accountability for his action and blame others." ;-)
What's a junvenile?
ReplyDelete